Two-child benefit cap is ‘key driver of child poverty’ in UK, research suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/06/two-child-benefit-cap-is-a-key-driver-of-child-poverty-in-uk-research-suggests
Posted by Low_Map4314
Two-child benefit cap is ‘key driver of child poverty’ in UK, research suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/06/two-child-benefit-cap-is-a-key-driver-of-child-poverty-in-uk-research-suggests
Posted by Low_Map4314
17 Comments
Starmer said this must be scrapped when campaigning to be Labour leader, but has since said nah let’s keep it.
Why do Labour not want to reduce child poverty?
When this policy was first introduced, I remember a lot of people, including the then Chancellor, arguing that the cap would change attitudes to how many children people would decide to have. Research from two years ago indicates [it had no significant impact](https://cpag.org.uk/news/has-two-child-limit-affected-how-many-children-families-have) on how people plan their families and that lots of other circumstances play a role in families getting caught out by the cap.
These policies get introduced as a supposed means of getting people working and earning enough to be off benefits entirely, but it’s apparent the results aren’t delivering. People can be in work and still finding themselves at food banks. It’s quite embarrassing how standard a practice it has become for young families to be routinely reliant on these relief schemes that are intended for emergency purposes.
Is this levelling up? Is this what we want to keep pushing on with? If we’re not scrapping the cap there clearly needs to be changes elsewhere to stop so many working families falling into cracks they can’t get out of.
The bigger question is,why aren’t companies paying a living wage and so many working people have to rely on wage top ups provided by the tax payer?
Good job Starmer wants to reduce child poverty then, innit?
……..
Oh.
In Germany families get €250 (£212) per month per child. It is paid until the age of 21 (if the person in question is registered with the job centre and looking for work), or 25 if they’re in higher education. There’s no reason to not do this – it increases the chances the kid will grow up to be a productive member of society. It’s also cheaper than paying for the repercussions of child poverty.
Not recieving a state hand out is not a driver of poverty though ? Low and stagnating wages, unskilled workforce, inactive labour force, skills gaps, poor education, rising cost of living, high inflation, high food, energy cost, high taxes are.
Uhuh yet I still don’t want my taxes going to parents having an unreasonable number of children that they cannot afford.
I would not have the guts to write a headline that attributes poverty to insufficient benefits.
Presumably, you could also frame that as “people choosing to have more than two children”.
Hate to be a party pooper but if you can’t afford kids don’t have ‘em.
And don’t get me started on the people who have 8 children in an already over populated world.
I would encourage folk to have kids – but u only qualify if it’s a working household. What is the point in paying folk to bring kids into a home where they learn to lounge and have no discipline. Kids who grow up in a hard working household will aim higher and want to earn. I would back these kids financially as much as possible to jump start their lives.
Labour should just say what needs to be said to get into power, then hammer pensioners with means testing.
Just one or two of you live in a mortgage free house worth over £450k? Then fucking sell it and downsize into a £200k retirement flat and invest the cash into a government protected stocks and shares fund to supplement your income.
When you die. You still pass on your wealth to your family but you’re not sitting on a house and still getting care paid for by the taxpayer.
May not be a popular policy with pensioners but tough tits.
This will release housing stock to families that need them, reduce house prices by increasing supply and lower the cost of pensions.
So it’s not having more children than you can afford then?
Most middle class families I know have 1 or 2 children max. forget 2.4 children, it probably hasn’t been that in decades, it’s actually 1.7 children nowadays.
Who needs kids when you have AI as the worker of the future?
Alternative title
‘Having too many children is key driver in poverty’
I understand this opinion will be unpopular with Reddit.
So the solution is… tax people more to pay for it? This is why productive people are having fewer kids.
“if you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have them!!!! Why should I pay you to raise your children” – more people than I’d care to admit.